Jump to content
IGNORED

Manchester Arena Explosion (Merged)


JasonM88

Recommended Posts

FFS... Not sure what pisses me off more - the fact that an intelligence agency would leak information when they have specifically been asked not to for operational reasons or the fact that some journalists are so hungry for a story they will jeopardise the attempts to bring the perpetrators to justice. Whoever worked with him and whoever else might be planning a similar attack needs to be arrested quickly. If leaking operation details, or publishing leaked operational details, means another attack happens at the hands of someone who might otherwise have been arrested before they knew the police were onto them, then I hope there is Hell to pay.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/may/24/us-officials-leak-more-manchester-details-hours-after-uk-rebuke

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some stupid cow of a neighbour being interviewed on the BBC tonight. Not sure if she was referring to Abedi's address, but she did say that she saw a house with a "black flag" hanging outside through the bedroom window. "I didn't think anything of it, because I didn't understand the writing".

Are people really that stupid ?!

Unbelievable.

A call to the police with a photo of the flag should have followed.

Imagine the uproar if some idiot had flown a swastika outside of their house ?!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An article by a French journalist who spent 10 months as an ISIS hostage. It was originally published after the Paris attacks.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/16/isis-bombs-hostage-syria-islamic-state-paris-attacks

This sentence sticks out to me, especially as it reflects simialr points made by numerous people, Muslim and non-Muslim, who have studied and spoke to IS:

"With their news and social media interest, they will be noting everything that follows their murderous assault on Paris, and my guess is that right now the chant among them will be “We are winning”. They will be heartened by every sign of overreaction, of division, of fear, of racism, of xenophobia; they will be drawn to any examples of ugliness on social media.

Central to their world view is the belief that communities cannot live together with Muslims, and every day their antennae will be tuned towards finding supporting evidence. The pictures from Germany of people welcoming migrants will have been particularly troubling to them. Cohesion, tolerance – it is not what they want to see."

I know there are posters on here who see my concern that we should not perceive this into a 'west vs Muslims' debate as me being soft or naive or refusing to countenance the severity of the threat Islamic terrorists pose. But my position is based on none of those things. The threat we face is very grave indeed. There are people who want to kill us who deliberately target our children as that is what causes the most despair and grief. Primarily due to work and partly due to recreation, I will spend pretty much every weekend from next week until September at various different large scale public events and that terrifies me. But, given the severity of the threat we face, it is vital we not let anger, outrage and other absolutely  understandable emotions cloud the fact that what really matters here is we find solutions that practically work and avoid rash reactions that play into the hands of the shits who carried out this atrocity. That means listening to the people who have come into contact with terrorists and those who have been radicalised and considering the solutions they put forward based on their experiences, rather than deciding we are all experts and going for the 'solutions' that seem intuitive but ultimately fail to resolve anything and possibly only inflame things further.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LondonBristolian said:

FFS... Not sure what pisses me off more - the fact that an intelligence agency would leak information when they have specifically been asked not to for operational reasons or the fact that some journalists are so hungry for a story they will jeopardise the attempts to bring the perpetrators to justice. Whoever worked with him and whoever else might be planning a similar attack needs to be arrested quickly. If leaking operation details, or publishing leaked operational details, means another attack happens at the hands of someone who might otherwise have been arrested before they knew the police were onto them, then I hope there is Hell to pay.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/may/24/us-officials-leak-more-manchester-details-hours-after-uk-rebuke

I am specifically not being contrarian but I have read elsewhere that the US security services are amazed by how terrorist suspects here are treated with kid gloves and think that we are letting the threat build by doing nothing about.

So they are leaking the information to let us know how dangerous these people and their devices are and how weak our monitoring and arrest of them is.

I don't know if this is right and your interpretation wrong but it is at least plausible that it is being done to get the British public to wake up and demand action and stop these things being brushed under the carpet with the usual triumvirate of:

Mentally ill

Attacking alone

History of criminality

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Eddie Hitler said:

I am specifically not being contrarian but I have read elsewhere that the US security services are amazed by how terrorist suspects here are treated with kid gloves and think that we are letting the threat build by doing nothing about.

So they are leaking the information to let us know how dangerous these people and their devices are and how weak our monitoring and arrest of them is.

I don't know if this is right and your interpretation wrong but it is at least plausible that it is being done to get the British public to wake up and demand action and stop these things being brushed under the carpet with the usual triumvirate of:

Mentally ill

Attacking alone

History of criminality

 

US Security Services may be amazed. Personally I do not see evidence our services take the threats any less seriously than the US. You might feel both our and the US security services should take the threat more seriously but I just do not see the gap in reactions.

But, in any case, that is not the point.

If we take your supposition as true and the US were taking the threat seriously and thought we were not then they might well leak information after the incident is finished to ensure that all facts make it into the public domain.

But they are not leaking information after the incident is finished. They are leaking it now whilst there is a live operation going on. The impact of that is that suspects are potentially discovering that evidence has come out that incriminates them before the police have a chance to arrest them giving them the opportunity to either 

a) destroy incriminating evidence 

b) escape 

or

c) bring any more planned attacks forward to cause at least some damage before being arrested.

This is not about the US security services alerting us all to the facts. This is people acting in a way that could lead to very dangerous people escaping justice or even committing acts that the police might have stopped if the terrorists had not got wind that the net was closing in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Eddie Hitler said:

I am specifically not being contrarian but I have read elsewhere that the US security services are amazed by how terrorist suspects here are treated with kid gloves and think that we are letting the threat build by doing nothing about.

So they are leaking the information to let us know how dangerous these people and their devices are and how weak our monitoring and arrest of them is.

I don't know if this is right and your interpretation wrong but it is at least plausible that it is being done to get the British public to wake up and demand action and stop these things being brushed under the carpet with the usual triumvirate of:

Mentally ill

Attacking alone

History of criminality

 

Ps one other thing I would add is that I do not think that triumvate is necessarily sweeping things under the carpet. It is a simple statement of fact that the majority of Islamic terrorists have a history of criminality just as it is a simple statement of fact that all Islamic terrorists are, as the phrase suggests, followed of Islam.

Whether someone is acting alone or not acting alone is again a simple statement of fact. The majority of recent attacks have been people acting alone. This appears not to be the case.

Mental health is more complex. I do not believe most terrorists are mentally ill and nor do I believe mental illness explains or excuses terrorism. Mental health does a lot of things to people but it is extremely rare that it compels people to commit violent acts and, even then, it does not explain someone carrying out a violent act in a calculated pre-meditated way. It must be true that terrorists - along with gang members and people who carry out mass shootings - must have a psychological mindset where they are willing to kill or injure large numbers of people but, whatever you could call that, it is not mental illness.

 

The simple points to me are as follows:

a) all jihadi terrorists are Muslim but not all Muslims become jihadi terrorists. It would be silly to discount Islam as a factor but neither can it be the full explanation.

b) most jihadi terrorists have criminal backgrounds and histories of gang memberships. That is unlikely to be a coincidence but the fact that seems relevant does not mean the fact they are also Muslim is not.

c) Only a percentage of those who support radical Islam actually carry out terrorist attacks. There must be a reason why some do and some do not. There must also be a reason why a number of people who were not raised as Muslim but do have histories of violence and gang activity choose to embrace Islam and commit terrorist atrocities. (Around 50% of terrorist attacks are converts).

The Problem to me is there is a lot of ideology on both sides. I would accept it is true there are people who get defensive as soon as Islam is mentioned as a potential factor and feel it should be discounted entirely. There are also people - and I promise this is not directed at you as I do not feel this is something you are doing - who get very defensive as soon as someone suggests that Islam on its own is not an explanation and there must be a reason why some Muslims get radicalised and some do not.

The point to me, as I have said a couple of posts above, is the only way to get to the root of this problem is to cut through the ideology on both sides and listen to people who have spent time engaging with Jihadists to find out why people embrace Jihad and how to stop them from doing so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, LondonBristolian said:

US Security Services may be amazed. Personally I do not see evidence our services take the threats any less seriously than the US. You might feel both our and the US security services should take the threat more seriously but I just do not see the gap in reactions.

But, in any case, that is not the point.

If we take your supposition as true and the US were taking the threat seriously and thought we were not then they might well leak information after the incident is finished to ensure that all facts make it into the public domain.

But they are not leaking information after the incident is finished. They are leaking it now whilst there is a live operation going on. The impact of that is that suspects are potentially discovering that evidence has come out that incriminates them before the police have a chance to arrest them giving them the opportunity to either 

a) destroy incriminating evidence 

b) escape 

or

c) bring any more planned attacks forward to cause at least some damage before being arrested.

This is not about the US security services alerting us all to the facts. This is people acting in a way that could lead to very dangerous people escaping justice or even committing acts that the police might have stopped if the terrorists had not got wind that the net was closing in.

I genuinely don't know so am not about to argue it.  But this is what I have read elsewhere and it does seem plausible.

Why withhold the name if not to allow people to start spouting about it being racist to suggest that the bomber was a muslim and so muddy the waters?

The motivation for releasing other technical and operational details is less clearcut to me but why withhold the name?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Eddie Hitler said:

I genuinely don't know so am not about to argue it.  But this is what I have read elsewhere and it does seem plausible.

Why withhold the name if not to allow people to start spouting about it being racist to suggest that the bomber was a muslim and so muddy the waters?

The motivation for releasing other technical and operational details is less clearcut to me but why withhold the name?

Because, as soon as the police know the name of the person who did it, it naturally follows on that they will very quickly know - if they do not know already - the names of any accomplices or associates and will be moving against them. Releasing the name of who the police are investigating tells anyone who might come up into the investigation as being associated with that name that now is the time to start destroying evidence or making your escape plans or bring forward any planned attacks. It is also plausible there may be people who have aided and abetted the person but may not have specifically known the intended target or that the person they had assisted was the person who carried out the attack. Therefore, if the name can be concealed, they might not even know that anyone is onto them until the police are hammering on their door.

With the greatest respect, the idea that the police were withholding the name to conceal the fact the person was a Muslim does not stand to scrutiny. The police known, as we all do, that the name will be made public eventually. They were never going to hide who did it forever - the aim could only have been to hide it for long enough that they could move against accomplices and associates without that move being anticipated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Big Brother said:

They and their stooges in Europe need to be hunted down and totally annihilated, like rats.

Here's is the ISIS worldview, in their own words:

The fact is, even if you were to stop bombing us, imprisoning us, torturing us, vilifying us, and usurping our lands, we would continue to hate you because our primary reason for hating you will not cease to exist until you embrace Islam. Even if you were to pay jizyah and live under the authority of Islam in humiliation, we would continue to hate you. No doubt, we would stop fighting you then as we would stop fighting any disbelievers who enter into a covenant with us, but we would not stop hating you…The gist of the matter is that there is indeed a rhyme to our terrorism, warfare, ruthlessness, and brutality.

It's pure undiluted Islamic theology.

 

 

I can assure you I am well aware of the ISIS worldview. They would indeed claim it is undiluted Islamic theology. And perhaps - in a narrow definition of political Islam - that might be so. But most Muslims would disagree that it is an accurate reflection of their religion. I assume at this point you would point to the Koran. I would then point to the fact that the evidence is that majority of Islamic terrorists are not especially familiar with the Koran so it probably is not the primary motivator for their actions. I would also ask where exactly in the Koran you think it says that people who are not religious scholars or imams have the right to declare people kaffir? As far as I can tell, that definition of the concept of Takfir appears nowhere within the Koran. 

 Islam began in around the 7th Century. The whole principles of ISIS are based on an interpretation of the concept of Takfir that permits individual Muslims, rather than the prophet or the state, to declare non-Muslims as Kaffir. This interpretation did not exist until the 14th Century writings of Ibn Taymiyyah, 700 years after the formation if Islam. Even then Ibn Taymiyyah was a minor scholar whose interpretation of Takfir was widely ignored until Muhammed Ibn Abd Al-Wahhab revived them in the 18th Century. Since the 1950s, Wahhabist groups have taken this obscure and minor definition of Takfir and made it central to their ideology because, if they stuck to traditional Islamic teachings and the Koran, they would have absolutely no authority to declare anyone Kaffir.

My point being the very fact that you have individual Muslims taking it on themselves to declare people kaffir in itself undermines the argument that what is actually going on is people following the Koran. I'm sure that Jihadists would have an answers to that and it might be you know what it is and will tell me. But what it will not be is in keeping with the traditions and history of Islam.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, phantom said:

Written by a Millwall supporter 

FB_IMG_1495661863597.jpg

Think he has a point, to say the least !!!!

 

It became apparent on a few occasions that I was obviously on some England Football Supporter List as whenever I travelled abroad anywhere near the day of an England game I used to get the third degree, questions checks , more 'checks' , more questions , having to prove travel plans , passport taken away for ' examination ' etc etc 

And all this BEFORE I even reached security / searches in departures !!

On at least three occasions this happened when I was travelling nowhere near a venue for an upcoming England Game

Ive never been arrested , let alone convicted in this country or abroad 

Seems to me that it would be easier to get into the UK from Libya

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, BobBobSuperBob said:

Think he has a point, to say the least !!!!

 

It became apparent on a few occasions that I was obviously on some England Football Supporter List as whenever I travelled abroad anywhere near the day of an England game I used to get the third degree, questions checks , more 'checks' , more questions , having to prove travel plans , passport taken away for ' examination ' etc etc 

And all this BEFORE I even reached security / searches in departures !!

On at least three occasions this happened when I was travelling nowhere near a venue for an upcoming England Game

Ive never been arrested , let alone convicted in this country or abroad 

Seems to me that it would be easier to get into the UK from Libya

flip side of that is if plod weren't dealing with ***** like this they would have more time for the other shit...surely  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, glynriley said:

Lots of people in this country now thinking the same, going by conversations I've been having for the last couple of days.

There will be reprisal attacks over the weekend I reckon. Not saying it's right, but this latest attack has made a lot of people very angry. I'm ******* angry myself, and I'm normally a fairly mild mannered, live and let live sort of a bloke. If I can feel this angry, imagine what some of the more extreme BNP/EDL types are going to be like. A bank holiday weekend, sun and booze a plenty...could be a powder keg.

Exactly what these people want to happen, I'm not for one second suggesting people shouldn't be angry, and it's a natural reaction to want revenge. But at the end of the day IS desperately want this exact scenario.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Key Questions About The Abedi Family

 

By Thomas Burrows 

What were Salman Abedi's father's links to terror groups?

Ramadan, a former airport security worker, was a member of the Libyan Islamic Fighting group in the 1990s, according to a former Libyan security official. The group had links to Al-Qaeda. Although the LIFG disbanded, he reportedly belongs to the Salafi Jihadi movement, the most extreme sect of Salafism and from which Al-Qaeda and ISIS hail. He had also publicly voiced his support for an extremist group fighting in Syria. He posted photos of soldiers clad in black uniforms from the Al-Nusra Front, which was the official Syrian branch of al Qaeda until it broke up last July, on his Facebook page five years ago.

Ramadan's wife, Samia, a nuclear scientist, is a close friend of the wife of Abu Anas al-Libi, an Al-Qaeda veteran who was snatched off the streets of Tripoli in 2013 by US special forces. Al-Libi faced accusations of involvement in the 1998 bombings of two US embassies in Africa. He was on the FBI's most-wanted terrorist list and died in U.S. custody in 2015.

Why did his parents leave Britain?  

Ramadan fled Tripoli in 1993 to Saudi Arabia after he was accused of helping Islamists by tipping them off before police raids.

He then claimed political asylum in Britain and lived there for 25 years, fathering three sons and a daughter, before returning to Libya after Gadhafi was ousted and killed in the country's 2011 civil war.

He went on to become a manager of the Central Security Force in Tripoli, as different factions continued to fight for overall control of the country. 

What were his brothers, Hashem and Ismail's links to terror groups?

Hashem had posted comments on ISIS-supporting sites. The Libyan security force claimed he told authorities both he and his brother belonged to ISIS. The Special Deterrent anti-terror force said Hashem was receiving cash transferred from Salman. Detectives said Hashem had links to Islamic State and was planning to carry out a terror attack in Tripoli. Ismail, who was arrested on Tuesday in south Manchester, was once reported to a counter- terrorism unit after concerns were raised by members of the Muslim community.

How much was known about Salman prior to Monday night's attack? 

Two people who knew Salman are said to have called the police counter-terrorism hotline five years ago to raise concerns that he thought 'being a suicide bomber was OK'. And a senior US intelligence official has claimed that members of his own family had warned police that he was 'dangerous'. 

Why was he allowed to travel freely between Libya and the UK?

UK border checks were branded a 'shambles' after it emerged the suicide bomber had travelled to ISIS strongholds Syria and Libya before being able to come 'straight through' to Britain. Labour's Khalid Mahmood told MailOnline the case of Abedi demonstrated the weakness of Britain's border check system and claimed border staff had been reduced by 50 per cent since 2010.

Had Salman been to Syria? 

France's interior minister Gerard Collomb told French TV that both British and French intelligence services had information that the attacker had been in Syria. Asked if he believed Abedi had the support of a network, Collomb said: 'That is not known yet, but perhaps. In any case, (he had) links with Daesh (ISIS) that are proven.'

 

 

How can we ever had this pond life family living in this country

Father a AIRPORT SECURITY WORKER

Good vetting :facepalm:

Jesus Wept

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Big Brother said:

Eh?

It's the Koran that declares and defines who is an unbeliever (kafir).  And the Koran is riddled with verses about us unbelievers which a quick Google search will show you.

ISIS are Islamic.  Please don't try to deny this in order to protect 'nice muslims'.

 

 

Genuinely laughing to myself now. Up until this point, I actually believed you were reasonably well-versed with how Islam works as a religion. Evidently not. 

Re the second part, of course IS are Islamic. Nobody is saying they are not. But it is nonetheless an interpretation of Islam, far from the most common one and, for the reasons I outlined above, theologically incompatible with traditonal historical interpretations of Islam.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about closing down mosques that are associated with an attacker or somebody who downloads extremist material? 

Also, if a person downloaded child pornography-you would think they have the desire to commit paedophilia in the real world. Perhaps we should apply this logic to Muslim extremists who are on watch lists or known to the police? Muslims who download ISIS magazines, who call for dead British soldiers etc should be a big enough clue that they have the desire to carry out an attack.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Big Brother said:

Laughing? 

Take-off your blinkers and start seeing what is in front of your eyes.

 

You are just speaking words that have no power or consequence.  

An interpretation of is the same as 'it'.

ISIS is Islam.  It's looks shit and barbaric because Islam is just that.  

Islam is the bombing of kids at a pop concert.

I am no longer able to have any respect for a muslim. Their religion is awful, moronic and dangerous shite.  It ruins everything it touches.  If they want to enjoy the benefits of OUR society they need to drop the bullshit that poisons everything.

And if I read or hear the phrase "we as muslims" or "as a muslim" I'm going to reach for the sick bag.

 

 

I am not the one with blinkers on. But we're back at our usual impasse so I shall leave it there. I don't see what either of us will gain by once again dancing around in circles with each other. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Big Brother said:

Laughing? 

Take-off your blinkers and start seeing what is in front of your eyes.

 

You are just speaking words that have no power or consequence.  

An interpretation of is the same as 'it'.

ISIS is Islam.  It's looks shit and barbaric because Islam is just that.  

Islam is the bombing of kids at a pop concert.

I am no longer able to have any respect for a muslim. Their religion is awful, moronic and dangerous shite.  It ruins everything it touches.  If they want to enjoy the benefits of OUR society they need to drop the bullshit that poisons everything.

And if I read or hear the phrase "we as muslims" or "as a muslim" I'm going to reach for the sick bag.

 

 

"B-b-but my neighbour is a Muslim and he's a top bloke!"

OK...I'm sure he is but that doesn't excuse the far reaching actions of the ideology that he continues to support. Once again we are seeing the machine in action-highlighting James Corden's 'defiant' speech, stories of Muslim heroes and sad cartoons. It's all bull**** that results in nothing being done, and I'm sick of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Big Brother said:

I've read books on Islam old chap, I almost made it all the way through the Koran but the derangement finally got to me.

I prefer to leave the lying and deceit and bullshit and the killing about the Koran to the Muzzies and stick with what I can see with my own eyes: what the koran says in black and white and the impact that has on the us.

Any ground given to Islamic beliefs or muslims in general, is just another place from which they will demand more.

 

I think this may be where we misunderstand each other's perspectives. Nobody should give any ground to Islamic beliefs whatsoever. Anyone living in British society should be expected to follow British laws. Anyone who does anything that does not follow British laws should face the legal consequences.  That is not my point.

I could expand but I genuinely don't think it would be helpful. I think you feel you have a very clear idea of what I believe. To some degree, you might be right but, to another degree, you are completely wrong. The same is true with me towards you of course. And I think, over the Internet, it is hard to read anyone's arguments without fitting them into our assumptions about someone's worldview. And I think any argument I make you will read as me being a globalist who wants to sympathise with terrorists. Which is not the case at all. 

And it does lead to a situation where we reach a point in the discussion where I make assumptions about that you read and think "hang on, that's not what I think" or  you make assumptions about me where I think the same thing. That's just the nature of the internet of course.

I think we see the world in very different ways. But I think most of your assumptions of how you think I see the world are not entirely accurate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎23‎/‎05‎/‎2017 at 18:47, LondonBristolian said:

I love my fellow English men and women (and indeed fellow British men and women) enough to value their liberty, safety and peace. That includes their librety to follow a religion of their choosing, including Islam.

More practically, if there is one lesson to be learned from history, it is that banning anything never ever works. It simply drives people underground. And frankly the vast majority of Islamic terrorists are people who identify as Muslim culturally but feel disconnected from both their religion and mainstream Muslim society. Generally speaking people who might see themselves as from Muslim backgrounds (whatever that means) but not go to mosques or follow the Koran and, up until the point of radicalisation, might be engaging with drugs, alcohol, strip clubs, casual sex or other behaviour that is not perceived as Islamic - hence the desperate violent desire to prove their faith in some dramatic way because they struggle to do the small acts on a day to day basis.

Banning Islam has three fundamental flaws:

1. As previously stated, it is erroneous to think you can successfully ban a religion. Any religion. It just will not work. Agree but we can ban fundamentalism and the teaching of terrorism and the hatred for our/their country. Even fundamentalists have argued that some of its laws are there as deterrents, eg the flogging of women for adultery and the death of all homosexuals- even the deterrents are barbaric and not of a religion of peace 

2. It will drive people away from traditional Muslim places of worship, where terrorists tend not to go, and to the places where radical jihadists might actually be. Unfortunately Mosques can be a breading ground for jihadists as are prisons, colleges and universities.

3.Given the mainstream Muslim community is not in itself the problem, banning the mainstream Muslim community will not be an effective solution. Agreed but the imam and its practicers of the mosques should be self policing of its community.

If you actually read interviews with people who have joined IS, they are often gang members who have chosen to join what they see as the biggest gang in the world. Solving the problem of radical Islamic terror is far more likely to be achieved by tackling the reasons why people join gangs than by ill-conceived and doomed attempts at stopping people following a religion. indeed heroin and the gangs and dealers that push it are heavily linked with the fundamentalists, ironic really when many of these gang leaders have white mistresses, sniff coke, drink and like a flutter-its ok though because they are committing their own personal jihad by using heroin as a poison to ruin the lives of non muslim communities, hmmmm whatever justifies it!

Apathy will be this countries downfall, along with the ACTUAL lack of freedom of speech for ALL.

Blair and Bush have blood on their hands and not for the first time.

Peace, Love & Unity.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, The Gasbuster said:

Some stupid cow of a neighbour being interviewed on the BBC tonight. Not sure if she was referring to Abedi's address, but she did say that she saw a house with a "black flag" hanging outside through the bedroom window. "I didn't think anything of it, because I didn't understand the writing".

Are people really that stupid ?!

Unbelievable.

A call to the police with a photo of the flag should have followed.

Imagine the uproar if some idiot had flown a swastika outside of their house ?!

 

The police would probably have arrested her for being "islamophobic".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, YorkshireSection said:

 

Cannot actually quote what you have written but I agree with a lot of it. Here are some comments anyway:

1. Yes, many of the deterrents are barbaric. To an extent, this is true of all religious texts although, from what I know and remember, the New Testament is substantially less violent than the Koran. The Old Testament is pretty barbaric though. But anyone calling Islam a Religion of Peace is being both patronising and inaccurate. The Koran is a religious book written at a time of war 700 years ago. A lot of Muslims realise this and follow the bits that make sense today and disregard other bits or see them as allegory (in much the same way I doubt anyone would read about what Lot did after he fled Sodom and Gomorrah and believe they have permission to get drunk and have sex with their own daughters). The problem of course is that some Muslims read the bits about violence against non-believers and disregard the bits about that only being acceptable in a state of war and that only the Prophet or religious leaders have the ability to declare anyone an 'enemy of Islam'. The Koran is, in very many ways, not a very nice book. But it does not actually give IS permission to bomb or main civilians and the majority of IS followers hear selective quotes from it rather than read it for themselves. On its own and stripped of context, a 1400 year old book is not the sole reason why Islamic terrorism happens, especially as the philosophy that underpins Islamic terrorism was not written until 700 years after the Koran.

 

2. Mosques can indeed be a breeding ground. But that happens far less now than it used to and closing mosques would do nothing to reduce the threat. 

 

3. The Imam and practicers should indeed self police and, if someone has any reason to believe someone may be planning or support Islamic terrorism then the authorities have to be made aware.  At the same time, I think part of the problem is the idea of a Muslim community. For different reasons that I will not go into for reasons of space, it suits Muslim religious and community leaders, IS, the Conservative Party, the Labour Party, probably other parties, anti-Muslim nationalists and the Muslim Council of Britain to push the idea that Muslims in Britain are part of a tight-knit community where the community leaders know everyone and know exactly what is going on. That is not by any means always reflective of reality and it creates this situation where Muslims and non-Muslims believe that community leaders have the power to talk young men out of committing jihad whereas those young men who join the IS very possibly think of their community and religious leaders as patronising out of touch ******* who have betrayed their values by accepting western law. To be honest, if we could as a society start treating Muslims - and pretty much any other minority groups - as individuals rather than part of a homogenous mass, everyone would be the better for it.

 

You are bang on about the heroin and the hyporcrisy which again shows it is not so simple as "these people did it because they are doing what the Koran tells them". Ultimately we are talking about hypocrites who struggle to follow the Koran and get drawn towards big dramatic acts that show faith through violence because they cannot manage every day religious observance and feel under pressure to do so.

I do not wholly agree about Bush and Blair. I do not think we should have got involved with Afghanistan and I do not think we should have invaded Iraq. But, at the same one, the suggestion that people commit terrorist atrocities because of western policy allows the perpetrators to wriggle out of responsibility by saying they are oppressed victims. Anyone who carries out a bombing is wholly responsible for their own actions and wholly responsible for the consequences those actions have. Undoubtedly IS find Western violence a great recruitment tool but it neither explains nor justifies acts of barbaric violence.

Where I very much agree with you is on the "peace, love and unity". And that free speech is vital.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Northamptonshire Red said:

"B-b-but my neighbour is a Muslim and he's a top bloke!"

OK...I'm sure he is but that doesn't excuse the far reaching actions of the ideology that he continues to support. Once again we are seeing the machine in action-highlighting James Corden's 'defiant' speech, stories of Muslim heroes and sad cartoons. It's all bull**** that results in nothing being done, and I'm sick of it.

We hear this all the time.

Mohammad Sidique Khan; was no doubt, regarded as a "top bloke" by most if not all around him, he was a primary school assistant.

Opinions changed of course, when he and his three wanchor mates blew themselves up in London, killing 52.

I.S. and Al Qaeda ensure their attackers are well trained. This training will certainly include instruction on "blending in" with the community around them, not behaving in a manner which will attract attention, and gaining the TRUST of those they hide amongst.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If multiculturalists ran zoos, and put all the animals in together, it wouldn't take long to see it didn't work. Yet they believe that's how our country should be structured. Birds of a feather flock together. That's just how it is.  Yet if anyone speaks out about it they are branded racist. It was a massive social experiment which went wrong, but the days of being able to do anything about it are long gone.  And the silent majority, who were never asked if that's what they wanted, are left to pick up the pieces.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, 1953 said:

If multiculturalists ran zoos, and put all the animals in together, it wouldn't take long to see it didn't work. Yet they believe that's how our country should be structured. Birds of a feather flock together. That's just how it is.  Yet if anyone speaks out about it they are branded racist. It was a massive social experiment which went wrong, but the days of being able to do anything about it are long gone.  And the silent majority, who were never asked if that's what they wanted, are left to pick up the pieces.

Without wanting to get into semantics, that's not what multiculturalism is. Multiculturalists would agree that "birds of a feather flock together", as you put it, hence the creation of micro-communities and community groups that were left to get on with things themselves without being asked to, or even given the opportunity to, be part of a wider society as a whole.

I absolutely agree with you that multiculturalism is and was a terrible idea that went very badly wrong but I would say it was because it accentuated people rather than what links us all together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The BBC and SKy keep showing interviews with imams and a trustee of a local mosque who all say that terrorism has nothing to do with their religion!!!  The religion is a political system that was founded on terrorism by "the Messenger" after he moved from Mecca to Medina. He raided, robbed, killed, tortured, took slaves, asked for assasinations and was altogether a terrorist. Muslims have to obey "Allah and his Messenger" - i.e. Mohammed, who is the perfect example for all Muslims to follow. Now why do you thing the media allow these imams and the like to get away with their lies? I reckon it is evil crowd control and the ignorant Brits, who have never read anything about Islam, fall for it hook line and sinker. That is what allows these people to set up their terror networks in plain sight of their trusting neighbours.  Islam is very much about us and them - believers vs non believers (kafirs) - its about time to wake up and understand this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...